Camden Kentish Town Road / Fortess Road / Highgate Road junction

15 March 2018 https://consultations.wearecamden.org/supporting-communities/kentish-town-rd-fortess-rd- highgate-rd/

About the London Cycling Campaign

London Cycling Campaign (LCC) is a charity with more than 40,000 supporters of whom 12,000 are fully paid-up members. We speak up on behalf of everyone who cycles or wants to cycle in Greater London; and we speak up for a greener, healthier, happier and better-connected capital.

This response was developed with input from LCC’s borough groups and is in support of the response from the Camden Cycling Campaign.

General comments:

This scheme should only move forward if it is on the basis of being designed to provide immediate gains for pedestrians while avoiding reducing the viability of any future, higher-quality scheme with a broader range of benefits for a broader range of users.

Specific points about the scheme:

- Kentish Town Road leading to Fortess Road is directly aligned with one of TfL’s top 25 highest priority cycling corridors in its Strategic Cycling Analysis. TfL and boroughs are currently moving forward rapidly on schemes aimed to unlock the cycling potential on these 25 corridors, and it is difficult to see alternative routes other than this alignment in the vicinity that would fulfil the potential of this route. Similarly, Highgate Road is highlighted as a high potential corridor (although not one of the top 25). According to DfT traffic counts, Kentish Town Road already features over 2,000 cycle journeys daily (down from approximately 3,700 in 2010), despite those cycling being currently forced to mix in dangerous conditions with approximately 14,000 motor vehicles daily, including 500 HGVs and 1,200 buses and coaches. Given this, it is imperative that a high-quality scheme that enables far more people to cycle in and through this area is rapidly brought forward. These proposals do not deliver the quality of cycling infrastructure that is required to unlock the potential here. And it is puzzling Camden Council has chosen to advance this scheme without major improvements for cycling, given the Strategic Cycling Analysis.

- In order to enable the potential for cycling here, it is vital cyclists are able to move in comfort, convenience and safety through this junction to and from all directions. This scheme does not deliver that. Protected cycle tracks leading to and from the junction and separation in time and/or space, particularly along the busier and highest potential corridors, is vital. Or radical levels of motor vehicle volume and speed reduction (and potentially protected space too) to below 20mph and 2,000 PCUs of motor traffic daily.

- Advisory cycle lanes and Advanced Stop Lines offer little to nothing in the way of protection for those already cycling through this junction, and will not enable any more people to start cycling here. Mandatory lanes are of more value than advisory lanes, but if mandatory lanes are achievable, Camden Council should add semi-segregated protection or use stepped tracks instead.

- All proposed improvements for pedestrians are welcome, as long as they do not impact on the viability of any future, better scheme. The primary concern in this case is the pavement widening, which could theoretically impact on the ability to deliver cycle tracks in the future.

- Given this scheme does not deliver any important benefits for cycling, it should not be funded from any cycling budget.

General points about cycling schemes:

 LCC requires schemes to be designed to accommodate growth in cycling. Providing space for cycling is a more efficient use of road space than providing space for driving private motor vehicles, particularly for journeys of 5km or less. In terms of providing maximum efficiency for space and energy use, walking, cycling, then public transport are key.

 As demonstrated by the success of recent Cycle Superhighways and mini-Holland projects etc., people cycle when they feel safe. For cycling to become mainstream, a network of high- quality, direct routes separate from high volumes and/or speeds of motor vehicle traffic is required to/from all key destinations and residential areas in an area. Schemes should be planned, designed and implemented to maximise potential to increase journeys – with links to nearby amenities, residential centres, transport hubs considered from the outset.

 Spending money on cycling infrastructure has been shown to dramatically boost health outcomes in an area. Spending on cycling schemes outranks all other transport mode for return on investment according to a DfT study. Schemes which promote cycling meet TfL’s “Healthy Streets” checklist. A healthy street is one where people choose to cycle.

 All schemes should be designed to enable people of all ages and abilities to cycle, including disabled people.

 LCC wants, as a condition of funding, all highway development designed to London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS), with a Cycling Level of Service (CLoS) rating of 70 or above, with all “critical issues” eliminated.